There wasn't any indication in any alerts received by air defense units that "shoot-downs" may be required as opposed to intercepts -- i.e.; that the planes were definitely under control of "hostile" forces -- because ATC/FAA could not have known that.

When the first alerts were received from Air Traffic Control, all that air defense units were required to do was scramble standard interceptors to make contact with the incommunicado and off-course jets. F-16s and other fighter planes would have overtaken every single hijacked plane on September 11, before they had reached their targets. To view locations of air bases: http://www.StandDown.net/USAFbases.htm

If, at the time of interception, it was determined the aircraft were under hostile control and likely to impact targets, high-level air defense commanders at the Pentagon's National Military Command Center (NMCC) are fully authorized under existing and established regulations and procedures to authorize a shoot-down, in order to protect the United States of America from attack.

Yet air defense units that were ready and able on 911 at at least 35 nearby installations were ordered not to scramble interceptors: they were ordered to stand down from carrying out even the first stage of standard intercept procedures.

There is no question that if these interceptors had been scrambled at the time alerts were received, they would have intercepted the hijacked planes before targets were approached in every instance.

And there is no way that the office of the President or the NMCC could have known through any standard means that these incommunicado flights required anything other than standard interceptions, because ATC and FAA alerts did not relay any such information. The alerts simply requested that standard intercept procedures be implemented and that interceptors be scrambled forthwith.

Some disingenuous excuse-makers say things like: "Well, there was no air defense response because the U.S. had no procedures for dealing with such 'attacks,' because the U.S. had never been 'attacked' this way before."

This sheer, complete nonsense: fully established procedures for dealing with intercepts of all kinds, including of hostile aircraft, existed on September 11, as detailed above.

Furthermore: when those first alerts were received from ATC/FAA, there was no mention of any "attack" and no need for "unusual" procedures. There was only a need for standard, first-stage interceptions to be scrambled, and higher authorities prevented that.

Other disingenuous excuse-makers then say: "Well, of course higher authorities stepped in, because they had to see what was going on with the whole situation, as 'America was under attack.' "

America was not "under attack" when those first alerts were received; certainly ATC and FAA had no way of knowing so early in the proceedings that the jets which had broken communications and gone off-course were part of any "attack."

So why did the executive branch and high-level military authorities deliberately order the air defense interceptors to stand down? Nobody could have known that early in the proceedings that 'America was under attack"... or could they have known?

Those who ordered the stand down did know that early in the proceedings that "America was under attack" because they were complicit in the attack, and took all possible steps to ensure that the attack would take place, unimpeded by the air defense of the United States.

True patriots in this land who have sworn to protect and defend our Republic must consider these irrefutable facts and set about unswerevingly to bring these complicit individuals to justice.

As I may have told you long ago, I am a tyro at questioning the state. and such a task is not my principal activity. I am a small, specialty manufacturer who has gotten caught up in being disgusted by my government's lies and that has caused me to look at certain events more closely than those who are thought to be responsible for that scrutiny.

As you know by now, I have also been outraged by the monstrous lies that the government has foisted on the public, with the cooperation of the press, concerning the failure of the us military to interdict and prevent the murderously damaging conclusion of 3 or 4 commercial airliners on 911.

Just by searching The New York Times archives, I found the policy and the methodology for intercepting a runaway Lear 35 [Payne Stewart's charter]. The story clearly establishes that F-16's were scrambled to intercept this bizjet within 25 minutes of its failure to report to controllers upon its reaching its cleared altitude of 39,000 feet. These F-16's were scrambled only upon the loss of a radio communication: the transponder never ceased to function.

Mark Elsis is the Executive Director
of the LOVEARTH ® NETWORK with
1000+ EcoHumanePolitical websites.
http://Lovearth.net
eMail: Mark@Lovearth.net


Back to StandDown.net